Tag Archives: Fort Hood

Post navigation

The 47 victims of the Fort Hood, Texas massacre have finally been acknowledged by the Obama Administration as casualties in the global jihad. After a long, bureaucratic and controversial battle between public outcry and the Department of Defense, United States Army, and the Obama Administration, public outcry won.

This outcry culminated in a House Homeland Security Committee letter sent by chairman Michael McCaul, which urged his fellow members to view the ABC News report that contained footage of the attack and narratives of the survivors and to ensure the benefits of the Purple Heart were received by the victims. Former police sergeant Kimberly Munley, who was shot three times during the attack, said during an interview that President Obama, “broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of.”

The 2015 federal budget named that National Defense Authorization Act, contained language that declared Fort Hood victims eligible for Purple Heart because the attacks originated from a foreign terrorist organization against whom the United States as a legal Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF). Now, despite being awarded the medals, victims are apparently being denied the associated benefits of being combat wounded.

There should be no dispute that those targeted in the attack were facing a hardened jihadist, no different from the ones their comrades have faced in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

A Federal Bureau of Investigation probe into the shooting found that Army Major Nidal Hasan had been in constant communication with Al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, later killed in a U.S. drone attack. Emails released by the FBI shows how the former Yemeni AQ leader mentored Nidal Hassan, receiving reports, and blessing terrorist action.

To be blunt, the casualties of the attack on Fort Hood deserve the full rights of U.S. military combatants injured or killed during a time of war, because that is the situation we find ourselves in, a war with no front lines, but a global jihad.

Congress continues to struggle with Obama Administration officials, from all branches, in an effort to force them in matters of oversight, to merely assert facts that are already well known to everyone. A good example of this was the recent success of Rep. John Cornyn who was able to get recently appointed FBI Director James Comey to admit that Fort Hood Shooter Nidal Hassan was in fact motivated by Al Qaeda.

This should not have been news at all, since Hassan, a self-declared “Soldier of Allah”, was in direct correspondence with Al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a fact known to the U.S. counterterrorism officials prior to his attack. Yet the administration has continued to insist the matter was one of “work place violence”, not Islamic terrorism.

Yet even going on six years of an administration which introduced the world to the phrase “man-caused disasters,” we’ve not seen as tasteless a display of reality rejection as the one put on by Assistant Secretary Sarah Sewall at House Foreign Affairs Committee, Subcommittee on Terrorism Nonproliferation and Trade hearing on Boko Haram.

“I wish there was such discrimination in Boko Haram attacks. Boko Haram attacks everyone who is Nigerian. Boko Haram is an equal-opportunity threat for all Nigerian citizens.” (Emphasis added)

This statement, which combines a basic falsehood with disturbing callousness, earned rightful derision by the subcommittee, who pressed forward with additional inquiries, citing facts, including the 25:1 ratio in attacks against churches as opposed to mosques. Sewall began to backpedal:

The question that I was asked was whether there was an official State Department position on the motivations of Boko Haram, which I simply don’t have with me.

It seemed Assistant Secretary Sewall had misplaced her copy of the current truth as issued by the State Department, thus explaining her flailing answer.

While less grating than the tone-deaf reply, it is perhaps more appalling from a policy standpoint that Ms. Sewall thinks it appropriate that the State Department even have an “official position on the motivations of Boko Haram.” The only “position on the motivations of Boko Haram” that matters is Boko Haram’s, based on what they say and do. And they have not been shy on making their feelings known.

Boko Haram leader AbuBakr Shekhau has said, “Nobody can stop us and live in peace, except if you accept Islam and live by sharia law.” A simple statement that is pregnant with meaning. Instead, the State Department’s position is that economic deprivation, corruption, and bad governance by the Nigerian government motivate Boko Haram.

Sadly no. That’s what motivates the State Department’s interactions with the Nigerian government. State has used every new outrage by Boko Haram to rhetorically flog the Nigerian government for their failings on these issues. And they may be issues on which the Nigerian goverment deserves criticism, but they are irrelevant to the current conflict with Boko Haram, which is a jihadist terrorist organization motivated to impose shariah law.

This administration continues to insist on protecting us from the threats they they wished we faced, and solving problems they wish we had, instead of addressing the threats and problems this nation actually faces.

Unfortunately such distortions of reality will always come crashing down, violently, and at great cost.

A British court Monday heard yet another first-hand statement that jihadist terrorist attacks are motivated by radical Islamic religious beliefs.

Michael Adebolajo is one of the two men charged with hacking British soldier Lee Rigby to death in a brutal, daylight attack in London last May. He testified Monday, telling the court he did kill Rigby.

While Islamist groups and even the United States government argue religion should not be part of the conversation when it comes to terrorist attacks, Adebolajo – a convert to Islam – made it clear it was the driving force behind his actions.

“My religion is everything,” he said. “When I came to Islam I realised that… real success is not just what you can acquire, but really is if you make it to paradise, because then you can relax.”

‘To fight Jihad for the sake of Allah, it’s not something that is to be taken lightly, fun or something like this,” Adebolajo said.

That is consistent with what he said moments after Rigby’s murder. “But we are forced by the Qur’an, in Sura At-Tawba, through many ayah in the Qu’ran, we must fight them as they fight us,” he said, still carrying the meat cleaver, his hands covered in Rigby’s blood.

And it is consistent with what other killers and would-be terrorists have said for years.

Faisal Shahzad’s car bomb parked in Times Square in May 2010 turned out to be a dud. But he told his sentencing judge that he had hoped to fire a salvo in “the war against people who believe in the book of Allah and follow the commandments, so this is a war against Allah … which will only give rise to much awaited Muslim caliphate, which is the only true world order.”

Naser Jason Abdo was caught before he could try to bomb a restaurant popular with personnel from Fort Hood, Texas in July 2011. “The reason is religion, Mom,” he later said in a jailhouse visit with his mother.

“There’s an incessant message that is delivered by radical followers of Islam,” his own lawyer told the judge at Ahmed’s sentencing, “that one cannot be true to the faith unless they take action, including violent action, most especially violent action … that is a message that can unfortunately take root in individuals who feel like if they don’t do something, that they literally will not find salvation under their faith.”

Too often, the reaction to such brutality is to say it has nothing to do with the terrorist’s interpretation of Islam.

So whose message should we heed – the bureaucrats and activists promoting a politically correct ideal? Or the individuals who attempt to kill, or succeed in killing people because they believe Islam compels it?

We are told the Military can’t take back Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s salary of almost $300,000 accumulated while he awaited trial – or more accurately, while he delayed trial. His money has been given to charity! We won’t be told what charity. Odd isn’t it?

We can garnishee the wages of a dead-beat dad and put a lien on someone’s house for unpaid debts. Obama has hired multiple-thousands of IRS agents to take your money to pay for ObamaCare, whether you want it or not, but we cannot regain taxpayer money from the monster killer of our own Military personnel. Hasan will never pay his debt to America. Dying by lethal injection won’t come close. If the “charities” are in Palestine, or if the money went to any Muslim country or Muslim interest anywhere in the world, it should be the last groan in bending to the will of this country’s islamization.

A trio of Texas Republicans announced legislation this week to declare that the Fort Hood shooting was an act of terrorism, award the victims Purple Hearts, and make the victims and families eligible for special benefits similar to those offered to 9/11 victims.

It’s not the first congressional effort to get such recognition for victims of the 2009 attack, but it’s the first since Nidal Hasan was found guilty and sentenced to death for the massacre.

The Obama administration claimed it couldn’t change the designation from “workplace violence” because Hasan’s trial was still ongoing. Now that trial is over.

“We are a nation at war, and the location in which our men and women in uniform come under hostile fire from a terrorist should not unduly prejudice them and their families from receiving the full honors, recognition and benefits associated with their courageous service,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “As a nation, we have a sacred obligation to take care of them.”

“Justice was served when Nidal Hasan was found guilty and handed the death penalty. But justice has not been served for the victims of this horrific shooting. This legislation will ensure the victims of this obvious act of terrorism receive the benefits they not only need, but justly deserve,” Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) said.“We cannot continue allowing the Obama Administration to turn its back on these men and women by failing to admit this was indeed a terrorist attack on American soil. If the administration had properly labeled and managed the Fort Hood shooting from the beginning, this legislation would not be required.”

The third sponsor, Rep. Roger Williams (R-Texas), said, “The heinous attack on Fort Hood was a direct attack on the values and ideals our soldiers have sworn to defend. Nidal Hasan, the man who killed 13 and injured 32, said he switched sides in what he called a ‘U.S. war on Islam.’ This was not a disgruntled employee taking his anger out on coworkers, as the Administration would have you believe by labeling this an act of workplace violence. No, this was a terrorist attack meant to harm and kill U.S. soldiers who defend freedom and liberty for all Americans.”

“Because the President has placed more importance on political correctness than upholding his promise to take care of the victims, the victims have been neglected. This injustice must come to an end, and the Fort Hood Heroes Act is the right thing to do,” Williams continued. “It will restore the benefits, treatment and honor these men and women so rightly deserve.”

The trio announced their bill in Killeen on Monday with shooting survivors in the audience.

The bill also states the U.S. Government has a fundamental duty to our troops to safeguard them against avoidable harm, and the Fort Hood attack could and should have been prevented; the perpetrator, Nidal Hasan, had become radicalized while serving in the U.S. Army and was principally motivated to attack by an ideology of violent Islamist extremism; and Hasan proved himself to be not just a terrorist, but also a traitor and an enemy of the U.S.

Earlier today Major Hasan wassentenced to death for the murder of 14 men, women and an unborn baby at Fort Hood. But it remains to be seen whether he will ever actually be put to death, and the unimpressive judge’s decision to ban any evidence relating to motive confirms that the military, like other institutions, retains the same squeamishness about Islamic supremacism thathelped enable the attack. What follows is excerpted from my bookAfter America – and remains as valid today as when I wrote it:

Not so long ago I saw a two-panel cartoon: On the left hand panel, “This is your brain”; on the right hand panel, “This is your brain on political correctness” – a small and shriveled thing, but now standard issue.

Here’s a random selection of headlines:

Naval History Web Site Highlights Women’s History Month

Senior Navy Leader Receives Black Engineer of the Year Award

Davede Alexander Receives Diversity Leadership Award

Navy Women in Aviation Show Diversity is Rising

Top Pentagon Official Discovers Model of Diversity at Corona Warfare Center, Says Navy’s Doing Diversity Right

CNRH Seminar Teaches Lessons of Hope And Empowerment

The above were all plucked from the United States Navy newsletter. When the first one showed up in my in-box, I thought it might contain under-reported tales of derring-do off the Horn of Africa battling Somali pirates. But instead it’s one diversity-awareness story after another: “Senior Navy Leader Receives Most Diverse Engineer of the Year Award”; “Appointment Of First Somali Pirate to Joint Chiefs Of Staff Shows Diversity Is Rising, Says Top Pentagon Official”.

Well, you say, look, they’re just doing what they need to do to keep the Congressional oversight crowd off their back; it’s just a bit of window dressing. Hmm. In 2009, thirteen men and women plus an unborn baby were gunned down at Fort Hood by a major in the US Army. Nidal Hasan was the perpetrator, but political correctness was his enabler, every step of the way. Major Hasan couldn’t have been more straightforward about who and what he was. An army psychiatrist, he put “SoA” – ie, “Soldier of Allah” – on his business card. At the Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, he was reprimanded for trying to persuade patients to convert to Islam, and fellow pupils objected to his constant “anti-American propaganda”. But, as the Associated Press reported, “a fear of appearing discriminatory against a Muslim student kept officers from filing a formal written complaint.”

This is your brain on political correctness.

As the writer Barry Rubin pointed out, Major Hasan was the first mass murderer in US history to give a PowerPoint presentation outlining the rationale for the crime he was about to commit. And he gave it to a roomful of fellow army psychiatrists and doctors – some of whom glanced queasily at their colleagues, but none of whom actually spoke up. And, when the question of whether then Captain Hasan was, in fact, “psychotic”, the policy committee at Walter Reed Army Medical Center worried “how would it look if we kick out one of the few Muslim residents”.

This is your brain on political correctness.

So instead he got promoted to major and shipped to Fort Hood. And barely had he got to Texas when he started making idle chit-chat praising the jihadist murderer of two soldiers outside a recruitment centre in Little Rock. “This is what Muslims should do, stand up to the aggressors,” Major Hasan told his superior officer, Colonel Terry Lee. “People should strap bombs on themselves and go into Times Square.”

In less enlightened times, Colonel Lee would have concluded that, being in favor of the murder of his comrades, Major Hasan was objectively on the side of the enemy. But instead he merely cautioned the major against saying things that might give people the wrong impression. Which is to say, the right impression.

This is your brain on political correctness.

“You need to lock it up, major,” advised the colonel.

But, of course, he didn’t. He could say what he wanted—infidels should have their throats cut, for example. Meanwhile, the only ones who felt any need to “lock it up” were his fellow psychiatrists, his patients, his teachers at the Uniformed Services University, officials at Walter Reed, and the brass at Fort Hood. So they locked it up for years, and 14 people died.

And even when the slaughter had happened, much of the media found it easier to slander both the US military and the general populace than to confront the evidence. Like Nanny Bloomberg, the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Incompetano professed to be most worried about an “anti-Muslim backlash” from the bozo citizenry she had the forlorn task of attempting to hold in check.

As for the army, well, obviously, they’re a bunch of Bush-scarred psychos who could snap at any moment. Newsweek called the mass murder “A Symptom Of A Military On The Brink”:

That headline looks good, the reality less so. The death penalty in the United States means automatic appeals and infinite appeals. Even if Hasan at some point doesn’t decide that he wants to live at any cost and start helping his lawyers out, the long case won’t be over any time soon.

To their credit, the jurors did their job quickly

The jury deliberated for a little more than two hours.

The system however will drag it out

Hasan could become the first American soldier executed in more than half a century. But because the military justice system requires a lengthy appeals process, years or even decades could pass before he is put to death.

The lead prosecutor assured jurors that Hasan would “never be a martyr” despite his attempt to tie the attack to religion.

“He is a criminal. He is a cold-blooded murderer,” Col. Mike Mulligan said Wednesday in his final plea for a rare military death sentence. “This is not his gift to God. This is his debt to society. This is the cost of his murderous rampage.”

When Hasan began shooting, the troops were standing in long lines to receive immunizations and doctors’ clearance. Thirteen people were killed and more than were 30 wounded. All but one of the dead were soldiers, including a pregnant private who curled on the floor and pleaded for her baby’s life.

So decades. Possibly. Hasan is already 43. He could still very well die in prison. Certainly if he really doesn’t want to live, it’s entirely possible that with his level of disability, he might.

On November 20, 2006, Lieutenant General John Vines, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps, affirmed the death sentence against Akbar. Under an automatic appeal because of the sentence, the case was forwarded to the Army Court of Criminal Appeals, which upheld the sentence on July 13, 2012. Afterwards, the case was automatically appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, with a final right of appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Once Akbar’s appeals are exhausted and if his sentence stands, the President of the United States in his role as Commander in Chief would order the execution to take place, which is currently done by lethal injection. Akbar continues to be confined at the United States Disciplinary Barracks awaiting disposition of his sentence.

Good luck getting that order from Obama. It’s misleading to say that Nidal Hasan could be the first soldier executed in some time, because there’s actually a line.

Ronald Gray, a former Army specialist who was sentenced in 1988 after being charged with abducting, raping, sodomizing and murdering an 18-year-old female soldier and a 23-year-old civilian woman, as well as attempting to rape and murder another fellow soldier.

Dwight Loving, a former Army private who, like Hasan, was stationed at Fort Hood when he was sentenced to death in 1989 for the murders of two taxi drivers. He is currently awaiting an appeal despite giving a full confession for the killings on videotape.

How would the country that won WW2 handle this?

On August 8, 1942, Herbert Hans Haupt was sent to the electric chair. Haupt, a United States citizen, had joined a German raiding party into the United States. The trial of Haupt and his fellow conspirators lasted a month. It was over two months after their capture. Haupt was put to death seven days after the conclusion of his trial.

An independent commission conducted an investigation of the Fort Hood shootings. DoD released its report in January 2010. It found that the Pentagon was unprepared to defend itself against internal threats. DoD and other government agencies have characterized the massacre as “workplace violence” and omitted any mention of Islamist ideology or terrorist behavior.

The FBI determined that because Hasan had no co-conspirators, further investigation was unnecessary.

In his public address and at the eulogy, President Obama also refused to acknowledge the role of Islamic terrorism in the massacre.

Yet motive is what distinguishes one type of homicide from another. A homicide victim is equally dead regardless of motive. But our legal system and moral code mandate that intent be taken into account when determining what, if any punishment should be accorded.

Though the UCMJ does not have terrorism in its code as a possible charge, the military court could have waived jurisdiction, allowing Hasan to be prosecuted in Federal Court where a charge of domestic terrorism would have been in order.

However, Hasan has already admitted criminal guilt. Therefore, it is more likely that the government’s characterization of the massacre as workplace violence was made in line with its pattern of denial regarding Islamist ideology.

The Administration has also formed close alliances with Islamist organizations in a quest to silence all speech critical of Islam, in a manner tantamount to blasphemy codes.

Free speech constitutes a human right and is critical to maintaining the cause of freedom. It is especially important to allow open debate on the nature of national security threats and their motivational ideology.

Denying the threat of Islamic radicalism has consequences. Resulting policies hamper America’s ability to defeat those that wish us harm. Whether the Benghazi attacks, the Fort Hood massacre or other Islamic terrorist attacks, most Americans realize that purging the language does not eradicate threats.

This awareness does not apply to the Administration, however, where the folly continues.

This article was commissioned by The Legal Project, an activity of the Middle East Forum.

Deborah Weiss, Esq. is a regular contributor to FrontPage Magazine and the Washington Times. She is a contributing author of “Saudi Arabia and the Global Islamic Terrorist Network” (Palgrave MacMillan, 2011). A partial listing of her work can be found at www.vigilancenow.org.

Stunning details emerging from the court martial of Maj. Nidal Hasan implicating the US Army brass in refusing to address Hasan’s evident extremism. Perhaps that’s why the judge in the case yesterday refused to admit prosecution evidence proving Hasan’s jihadist motives — to protect the military from their nonfeasance.

As Bill Gertz noted in a frontpage Washington Times article two months after the attack, myself and two of my colleagues had warned the entire US Army Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection command at their annual conference about internal jihadist threats, giving them all the radicalization indicators save Hasan’s name, rank and serial number. And then there’s Hasan’s infamous powerpoint presentation, which he gave more than two dozen times to military audiences, where he warned of “adverse events” if Muslims in the military weren’t granted conscientious objector status to avoid killing other Muslims in violation of Islamic law (killing infidels was apparently OK). In that presentation he noted past incidents of fratricide, desertion to the enemy, and refusal to deploy as examples of such “adverse events”.

NPR noted today a meeting held by senior Walter Reed officials in 2008, more than a year before the Ft Hood massacre, to discuss the problems related to Hasan:

When a group of key officials gathered in the spring of 2008 for their monthly meeting in a Bethesda, Md., office, one of the leading — and most perplexing — items on their agenda was: What should we do about Hasan?

Hasan had been a trouble spot on officials’ radar since he started training at Walter Reed, six years earlier. Several officials confirm that supervisors had repeatedly given him poor evaluations and warned him that he was doing substandard work.

Both fellow students and faculty were deeply troubled by Hasan’s behavior — which they variously called disconnected, aloof, paranoid, belligerent, and schizoid. The officials say he antagonized some students and faculty by espousing what they perceived to be extremist Islamic views. His supervisors at Walter Reed had even reprimanded him for telling at least one patient that “Islam can save your soul.”

Participants in the spring meeting and in subsequent conversations about Hasan reportedly included John Bradley, chief of psychiatry at Walter Reed; Robert Ursano, chairman of the Psychiatry Department at USUHS; Charles Engel, assistant chair of the Psychiatry Department and director of Hasan’s psychiatry fellowship; Dr. David Benedek, another assistant chairman of psychiatry at USUHS; psychiatrist Carroll J. Diebold; and Scott Moran, director of the psychiatric residency program at Walter Reed, according to colleagues and other sources who monitor the meetings.

NPR tried to contact all these officials and the public affairs officers at the institutions. They either didn’t return phone calls or said they could not comment.

But psychiatrists and officials who are familiar with the conversations, which continued into the spring of 2009, say they took a remarkable turn: Is it possible, some mused, that Hasan was mentally unstable and unfit to be an Army psychiatrist?

And here’s the punchline:

One official involved in the conversations had reportedly told colleagues that he worried that if Hasan deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, he might leak secret military information to Islamic extremists. Another official reportedly wondered aloud to colleagues whether Hasan might be capable of committing fratricide, like the Muslim U.S. Army sergeant who, in 2003, killed two fellow soldiers and injured 14 others by setting off grenades at a base in Kuwait.

And yet his superiors did nothing. And for good reason. If anyone had actually taken action against Maj. Hasan, they would have been drummed out of the Army for religious discrimination. As Gen. Casey said days after the attack, “as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.” And the cost of that “diversity” was fourteen souls.

4. He describes himself as a Soldier of Allah, while explicitly repudiating his military service and the Constitution as forms of human idolatry.

5. He talks about killing American soldiers because they were going against the Islamic Empire… a reference to the rising emirates of Al Qaeda

I’m not sure what else Nidal Hasan could do to convince the authorities that he is a Muslim terrorist and that the men he killed and wounded were hurt in a terrorist attack and should be awarded and compensated accordingly.

One year after he waged a deadly shooting rampage at the Fort Hood Army base here in November 2009, Major Nidal Malik Hasan told a panel of military mental health experts that he wished he had been killed during the attack because it would have meant Allah had chosen him for martyrdom.

“I’m paraplegic and could be in jail for the rest of my life,” Major Hasan told the panel. “However, if I died by lethal injection I would still be a martyr.”

“I don’t think what I did was wrong because it was for the greater cause of helping my Muslim brothers,” he told the military panel.

He denied having remorse and justified his actions by saying that the soldiers he killed were “going against the Islamic Empire.”

Even liberals should be able to figure out that the imperial side is the evil one.

On December 7, 1941, the U.S. naval base at Pearl Harbor was attacked. Three years, eight months, and eight days later, the Japanese surrendered. These days, America’s military moves at a more leisurely pace. On November 5, 2009, another U.S. base, Fort Hood, was attacked — by one man standing on a table, screaming “Allahu akbar!” and opening fire. Three years, nine months, and one day later, his court-martial finally got under way.

The intervening third-of-a-decade-and-more has apparently been taken up by such vital legal questions as the fullness of beard Major Hasan is permitted to sport in court. This is not a joke: See “Judge Ousted in Fort Hood Shooting Case amid Beard Debacle” (CBS News). Army regulations require soldiers to be clean-shaven. The judge, Colonel Gregory Gross, ruled Hasan’s beard in contempt, fined him $1,000, and said he would be forcibly shaved if he showed up that hirsute next time. At which point Hasan went to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, which ruled that Colonel Gross’s pogonophobia raised questions about his impartiality, and removed him. He’s the first judge in the history of American jurisprudence to be kicked off a trial because of a “beard debacle.” The new judge, Colonel Tara Osborn, agreed that Hasan’s beard was a violation of regulations, but “said she won’t hold it against him.”

The U.S. Army seems disinclined to hold anything against him, especially the 13 corpses plus an unborn baby. Major Hasan fired his lawyers, presumably because they were trying to get him off — on the grounds that he’d had a Twinkie beforehand, or his beard don’t fit so you must acquit, or some such. As a self-respecting jihadist, Major Hasan quite reasonably resented being portrayed as just another all-American loon gone postal. So he sacked his defense team, only to have the court appoint a standby defense team just in case there were any arcane precedents and obscure case law he needed clarification on. I know that’s the way your big-time F. Lee Bailey types would play it, but it doesn’t seem to be Major Hasan’s style. On the very first day of the trial, he stood up and told the jury that “the evidence will clearly show that I am the shooter.” Later, in one of his few courtroom interventions, he insisted that it be put on the record that “the alleged murder weapon” was, in fact, his. The trial then came to a halt when the standby defense team objected to the judge that Major Hasan’s defense strategy (yes, I did it; gimme a blindfold, cigarette, and tell the virgins here I come) would result in his conviction and execution.

Our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse – US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey

By Caroline Glick:

This week, after a three-and-a-half-year delay, US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was finally placed on trial for massacring 13 and wounding 32 at Ft. Hood, Texas, on November 5, 2009.

Hasan was a self-identified jihadist. His paper and electronic trail provided mountains of evidence that he committed the massacre to advance the cause of Islamic supremacy. Islamic supremacists like Hasan, and his early mentor al-Qaida operations chief Anwar al-Awlaki, view as enemies all people who oppose totalitarian Islam’s quest for global domination.

Before, during and following his assault, Hasan made his jihadist motives obvious to the point of caricature in his statements about the US, the US military and the duties of pious Muslims. But rather than believe Hasan, and so do justice to his victims, the Obama administration, with the active collusion of senior US military commanders went to great lengths to cover up Hasan’s ideological motivations and hence the nature of his crime.

On the day of the attack, Lt.-Gen. Robert Cone, then commander of III Corps at Ft. Hood, said preliminary evidence didn’t suggest that the shooting was terrorism. Cone said this even though it was immediately known that before he began shooting Hasan called out “Allahu akhbar.” He called himself a “Soldier of Allah” on his business cards.

In an interview with CNN three days after the attack, US Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey said, “Our diversity, not only in our army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

The intensity of the Obama administration’s participation in this cover-up became clear in May 2012. At that time, Congress had placed a clause inside the Defense Appropriations Act requiring the Pentagon to award Purple Hearts to Ft. Hood’s victims. Rather than accept this eminently reasonable demand, which simply required the administration to acknowledge reality, Obama’s emissaries announced he would veto the appropriations bill and so leave the Pentagon without a budget unless the clause was removed.

Rather than define Hasan’s attack as an enemy attack or a terrorist act, the administration has defined it as a case of “workplace violence.” Following this determination, those wounded in the attack, as well as the families of the murdered, are denied the support conferred on soldiers killed or wounded by enemy fire.

At the first day of Hasan’s trial this week, he admitted that he perpetrated the murderous attack because he is a jihadist who “switched sides” in the war. That is, he told the court that he conducted the attack as an act of war against the United States to advance the goals of the global jihad.

Hasan’s statement made clear, once again, that in its efforts to describe his actions as “workplace violence,” the administration is engaging in a cover-up. Its purpose is to deny the American people the truth about the nature of the jihadist threat to their country.

3. He decided that he had to defend Islamic Sharia Law from American democracy. This explains his rant about the Constitution being Shirk.

The interesting question is what put him on that specific path. Did he turn to a mosque for answers… and get them?

Hasan, the sole suspect in the massacre of 13 fellow US soldiers in Texas, attended the controversial Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia, in 2001 at the same time as two of the September 11 terrorists, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt. His mother’s funeral was held there in May that year.

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Hasan’s eyes “lit up” when he mentioned his deep respect for al-Awlaki’s teachings, according to a fellow Muslim officer at the Fort Hood base in Texas, the scene of Thursday’s horrific shooting spree.

The account pegs his interest in Islam to his mother’s death. So it would appear that the Dar al-Hijrah mosque turned him into a ticking time bomb.

“We are the first to rush and run to defend our community and defend ourselves. The enemies of Allah are lining up; the question for us is, ‘Are we lining, or are we afraid because, because they may call us terrorists.’”

Being called “terrorists” should not matter to Muslims because Muslims are being called terrorists anyway, Elsayed said.

“You are a terrorist because you are a Muslim,” Elsayed said. “Well give them a run for their money. Make it worth it. Make this title worth it, and be good a Muslim.”

His name also appears in a 1991 Muslim Brotherhood document detailing the group’s plan to wage a non-violent civilization jihad to destroy “Western civilization from within.”

After Dar al-Hijrah attendee Ahmed Omar Abu Ali was arrested in Saudi Arabia and confessed to being part of an al-Qaeda cell that was planning to assassinate President George W. Bush, in an interview with the New York Times Abdul-Malik compared Abu Ali to civil rights icon Rosa Parks.

But Abu Ali was hardly a marginal figure at Dar al-Hijrah. He not only was a youth leader at the mosque and regularly delivered prayers there, he taught Islamic studies at the center and was a camp counselor for their youth summer day camp.

“I hear someone yell ‘Allahu akbar,’” Sergeant Shawn Manning told Army Times. “Usually something bad is going to follow after that, so I look up at him and he started shooting. He probably fired five or six shots before he shot me in the chest.”

Manning, a veteran of two deployments in Iraq, was referring to Major Nidal Malik Hasan, the U.S. Army psychiatrist who gunned down 13 and wounded 32 at Fort Hood, Texas, in November 2009. Nearly four years later the case is finally coming to trial but it is already clear that Major Hasan received more preferential treatment than his victims.

Hasan is still in the Army and retains his rank of major. The Army is still paying Hasan his full salary and has received more than $278,000 since his arrest in 2009. The Army is also taking care of the paralyzing injuries Hasan sustained in the gun rampage. That was before Hasan shot the unarmed Sergeant Alonzo Lunsford once in the head and six times in the body. Lunsford played dead and then fled the building but Hasan chased him down and shot him in the back. The bullet is still there but Lunsford told reporters that the Army refused to cover an operation to remove it, and docked his pay when he was undergoing treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder.

“We don’t get passes the way Major Hasan got passes,” Lunsford told the New York Times. “Each one of us has gotten a raw deal somewhere down the line.” Shawn Manning still carries a bullet in his back and fights for the pay he lost due to the Army’s ruling that Hasan’s attack was not terrorism, therefore the wounds were not related to combat.

Hasan had been emailing terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki about the prospect of killing infidel American soldiers, and Hasan did everything but take out a two-minute ad on the Super Bowl to announce his jihadist intentions. True to form, he yelled “Allahu akbar,” before killing 13 people, more than twice as many victims as the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. On his website, Anwar al-Awlaki was orgasmic with joy that Hasan had done his duty. Even so, the Army refused to call Hasan’s killing spree terrorism, gun violence or a hate crime. Rather, the government proclaimed the mass murder spree a case of “workplace violence.” The trial is taking the same course.

Hasan signs his statement/confession as SOA or Soldier of Allah. His motives entirely depend on Islam and the Koran. His entire ideology is an Islamist reading that rejects national allegiances in favor of Islam.

This is his confession.

In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious and the Most Merciful

I, Nidal Malik Hasan, am compelled to renounce any oaths of allegiances that require me to support/defend any man made constitution (like the constitution of the United States) over the commandments mandated in Islam (Quran and Sunnah.)

The sovereignty of Allah must always prevail over the sovereignty of man.

I therefore formally renounce my oath of office as well as any other implicit or explicit oaths I have made in the past that associate partners with Allah. This includes an oath of US citizenship.

The partners reference means Shirk or idolatry. Hasan makes it clear that his theology is hard core Islamist when he refers to the Constitution as Shirk.

Do you have any closing statements?

I invite the world to read the book of Allah and decide for themselves if it is the truth.

That would be Hasan’s call to Islam.

Question: What was your relationship with Anwar Al-Awlaki?

He was my teacher, mentor and friend. I hold him in high esteem for trying to educate Muslims about their duties to Allah. May Allah accept his martyrdom. We are imperfect Muslims trying to establish the perfect religion of Allah as supreme on the land.”

And here Hasan confesses to being Al Qaeda. He names Anwar Al-Awlaki, an Al-Qaeda leader, as his mentor, and describes them as sharing a common mission of imposing Islamic Supremacism on America.

“Warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the path of Allah: Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its own land, and then spreading it around the world.”

The source of that delightful notion of supremacism is the Koran.

“He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist.” Koran 61:9